…the first openly bisexual person elected to the U.S. Senate, didn’t place her left hand on a bible as per tradition. Instead, she used a book obtained from the Library of Congress which includes both the U.S. and Arizona constitutions.

The Pew Research Center for Religion & Public Life states that Sinema is the only member of Congress that identifies as “religiously unaffiliated.”

I'm reading a fascinating book about how our ideology influences what we *want* to see the world and how that interferes powerfully with the actual information hitting our eyeballs and I can't think of a better example than this. https://t.co/QyaPyOOEms

8 Comments for “Religious Animus Revisited”

The reason Pence looks uncomfortable probably has more to do with the fact that Sinema is sleeveless more than anything else. Mike Pence isn’t homophobic and this isn’t his first rodeo with a L, B, G, or T public figure.

—

Now, I am sure gay men across the country are spellbound and captivated by our new sleeveless Senator and are far more practiced in commenting on her fashion than I am, so may I join them in the following inspiration:

It is by no means frivolous that the new Senator was photographed wearing no fewer than three eye-popping outfits that day, each undeniably professional by at least one standard, all of them assertive, but also all of them extremely feminine. A lawmaker who does not have a religious affiliation is even more unheard of than a lawmaker who is bisexual, however much being L, G, B, or T is itself likely to drive one away from mainstream religion. Life’s circumstances have conspired to label Senator Sinema sharply. So it is only reasonable for her to engage in an aggressive public relations display to counter such labeling. I understand that’s what many gay men used to do when homosexuality was more frowned upon by the general public.

We are long past the point of people having to prove their citizenship is beyond reproach because of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation. Because the use of the Bible and religious language is used in the oath of office for elected officials, it is very difficult to draw out their moral purpose in a way that is secular. At first I thought swearing on the US Constitution to uphold the US Constitution was a logical fallacy in the service of saving face, but on reflection I think the use of the packaged Arizona lawbook as a sacred focus is logically and morally sound. She is a former Arizona legislator, after all, so she is swearing on the rock upon which she has built her civic ethics. Others might swear on a photograph of a family member (living or dead), or on a book written by one of our founding fathers.

Not likely to help alleviate the view that LGBT people (she’s a “B”) are motivated by religious animus when they force conservative Christian business owners to provide creative services to same-sex weddings.

Seriously?

Up to this point, every LGBT congress-critter has been religious. That’s done nothing to “alleviate” that view.

So sure. This isn’t going to alleviate that view either. And nothing else would either.

And what’s your takeaway from this supposed to be, anyway? That someone should lie about their religion to make conservatives feel better?

And what’s your takeaway from this supposed to be, anyway? That someone should lie about their religion to make conservatives feel better?

My thinking was there’s a fair chance she’s doing that anyway and she’s really a new age spiritual person who adheres to a mix of ideas from western and eastern religions alike, to put it politely. Atheism is at least something conservatives get, but a significant minority of Americans consider non-traditional religion to be tantamount to Devil worship. I place myself very close to that category.

I did not call her a liar. I said there is a fair chance she is lying about her religion to make conservatives feel better.

It also seems to me you are trying to separate a compound premise: deception for the purpose of trying to appease conservatives, in order to avoid acknowledging it on the merits. I will not allow you to separate them.

There is plenty of precedent: and Ms. Sinema absolutely has the right to her own conscience, absent any need to play to people who generally oppose her.
“By convention, incoming presidents raise their right hand and place the left on a Bible or other book while taking the oath of office. In 1789, George Washington took the oath of office with an altar Bible borrowed from the St. John’s Lodge No. 1, Ancient York Masons lodge in New York, and he kissed the Bible afterward.[17][18] Subsequent presidents up to and including Harry Truman, followed suit.[19] Dwight Eisenhower broke that tradition in 1953 when he said a prayer instead of kissing the Bible.[20]

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901.[21] Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce[22] swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearing on the constitution.[23] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[24] ” Note that J.Q.Adams was a fervent Christian. -https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

This should be entitled “Religious Animus against gay people revisited.”

Comments are closed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome

IGF CultureWatch is a blog that originated with the Independent Gay Forum, a group of writers and activists who focused on advancing gay and lesbian legal equality and social inclusion beyond ideological rigidity and leftwing orthodoxy. more